Paper
presented to the Now We The People Conference, 23.8.03, University of
Technology, Sydney

The Australian radical neo-liberal movement
and US global strategy

Damien
Cahill

Most
of you probably have at least a passing familiarity with organisations
such as the Institute of Public Affairs and the Centre for Independent
Studies, and I'm sure that most of you are familiar with the tirades of
their fellow-travelling polemicists, columnists such as Paddy McGuinness,
Piers Ackerman, Andrew Bolte and Miranda Divine.

For
those of you who are unfamiliar with these people and groups, here are
a few examples of what they have to say, which should give you an idea
of where they are coming from:

Windshuttle
on Chomsky and anti-war movement:

'This
kind of two-faced morality provided a model for the worldwide protests
by left-wing opponents of the American-led coalition's war against Iraq.
The left was willing to tolerate the most hideous acts of state terrorism
by the Saddam Hussein regime, but was implacable in its hostility to intervention
by Western democratic governments in the interests of both their own security
and the emancipation of the Iraqi people. This is hypocrisy writ large.'

-
Keith Windshuttle, 'Unmasking Noam Chomsky', Policy Winter 2003.

Nahan
on biotechnology:

'Few
technologies have offered so much and at the same time been demonised
by so many as genetically modified crops. .
Unfortunately the success of the technology has had no impact on its opponents.
They have continued their campaign to stop the technology and its benefits.
That they call themselves environmentalist or humanitarian is a Monty
Pythonish joke. Let's hope science and sense rule over propaganda and
greed'

What
I want to do today is talk briefly about role of these individuals and
institutions in providing a justificatory framework for neo-liberalism
and the latest manifestation of US imperialism - the so-called 'war on
terrorism'.

Much
has been written on think tanks, in Australia and elsewhere. In particular
there have been numerous articles in Australian newspapers looking at
the 'think tank phenomenon'. Some of you may have seen the recent series
along these lines by Brad Norrington in the Sydney Morning Herald. Such
investigations are usually either inconclusive regarding think tank influence
or they ascribe huge amounts of influence to the think tanks, particularly
to right-wing think tanks.

If
we want to understand the role of right-wing think tanks, and therefore
if we want a better understanding of our opponents, then we need to think
about them in a different way.

In
order to understand the 'think tank phenomenon' we need to go beyond the
think tanks themselves. Firstly, Australia's right-wing think tanks are
part of a broader radical neo-liberal movement. That is, they are part
of a movement that is committed dismantling the welfare state and believes
that the 'free market' is the best way of distributing most goods and
services in society - including education, health care and welfare. The
think tanks provide an organisational backbone for this movement. A place
to meet other movement activists and a way of disseminating the movement's
ideology. Secondly, crucial to the success of this movement has been corporate
support. And I don't just mean funding, although funding has been essential.
In fact, if it was up to the free market, then think tanks would have
had difficulty supporting themselves simply through the sale of their
services. Corporations provide other support though - they sit on the
Boards of think tanks ands thus offer legitimacy, they help to broker
a flow of funds from other corporations to the think tanks.

This
has implications for how we understand the movement and its think tanks
because we need to ask the question why have corporations funded the think
tanks and what effects has this funding had? It also has implications
for the possibility of setting up left-wing think tanks and what form
they might take.

History
of think tanks

There
are actually only a handful of think tanks in Australia that are ideologically
committed to the radical neo-liberal agenda. The main ones are the Centre
for Independent Studies, the IPA and the Tasman Institute. Although the
IPA was founded in the 1940s and at that time supported a conservative
Keynesian economic position radical neo-liberal think tanks really got
their kick start in the 1980s with a large injection of corporate funding.
It was because of this and the fact that they were articulating the interests
of powerful sections of business that they were able to emerge from relative
obscurity in a short space of time.

Australian
right-wing think tanks have traditionally had good relationships with
their overseas counter-parts, particularly US and British think tanks.
Such links have been crucial in providing not only the organisational
structures if Australian think tanks, but also many of the ideological
frameworks, arguments and language used by the Australians. Indeed it
has been remarked that they are best understood as 'second hand dealers'
in ideas - very little original knowledge comes out of the Australian
think tanks. Most often they are simply mobilising ideas developed elsewhere
for the Australian context.

Impact
and influence

Well,
that's the context, what about their impact and influence?

Its
often assumed that the radical neo-liberal movement - the think tanks
and their supporters - have been the ones who have driven Australia's
support for neo-liberalism, the dismantling of the welfare state and support
for the US imperialism. There's not much evidence to support this view
however. Clearly they have a much closer relationship with the Liberal
Party than they do with Labor, particularly at the federal level.

However,
ideology alone doesn't determine pubic policy.

So,
if the think tanks and the radical neo-liberal movement haven't driven
these changes, then what has been their role, their impact?

Attacking
and undermining the Left

Well,
the radical neo-liberals see themselves as engaged in an ideological struggle.
They are ideological warriors. Ideological shock troops. An insight into
this mentality in provided by recalling the words of Friederich Hayek
at the founding conference of the Mont Pelerin Society in 1947. He exhorted
his fellow neo-liberals to 'train an army of fighters for freedom'. The
Left, in their view, is a threat to the very basis of a free society.

The
radical neo-liberals have therefore been relentless in their assault upon
the Australian Left and upon notions of social justice in general. In
the eighties the Left was labelled the 'new class'; self-interested, publicly
employed and using their privileged positions the foist a radical ideological
agenda on ordinary Australians. In the 1990s the Left were 'politically
correct special interests'. We were portrayed as privileged and contemptuous
of the values of the mainstream, of ordinary Australians, and appeals
to social justice no more than the product of the latest intellectual
fad. In the 21st century, we are either globaphobes - nationalistic and
scared of the benefits of competition and free markets - or we are 'Blaming
Ourselves' for the terrorist attacks upon the twin towers. The corollary
of this is that the Left is more sympathetic to Bin Laden and his mates
than to those who lost their lives on September 11, 2001. For the radical
neo-liberals this is evident in the anti-war movement, as is a parochial
anti-Americanism.

The
latest from IPA is a concerted campaign against NGO's who oppose neo-liberalism,
in fact NGO's who advocate on behalf of social justice.

Such
arguments have been put relentlessly by the radical neo-liberals and their
fellow-travelling polemicists in the major dailies for the last twenty
years. More recently we've heard them regularly on the ABC's Insiders
program every Sunday morning - so much for the ABC's Left-wing bias.

Now
one might reply that these are simply labels - but they are labels that
have stuck. They've flung a lot of mud and it has stuck. And those labels
that have stuck are labels that have resonance and which are evocative.
They are labels that demonise the Left. That denigrate social justice.
That reduce social justice to intellectual fashion or to the self-interested
pleading of special interests. The anti-war movement becomes anti-American,
or pro Saddam, much like the attempts by conservatives during the Cold
War to reduce the peace movement to the work of agents of Moscow.

Importantly,
in demonising the Left the radical neo-liberals have offered their own
ideological vision of the world as the one that best represents the interests
and aspirations of ordinary Australians.

The
radical neo-liberal think tanks haven't been the only cause of this, but
they have been an important one.

A
framework for neo-liberalism

Through
their publications and seminars the radical neo-liberals have provided
a framework and language for converting what are essentially the sectional
interests of wealthy elites and corporations into a universal interest.
They have provided a framework for policy, a framework of language, and
a justificatory framework for neo-liberalism.

The
policy framework has been important particularly in traditionally non-economic
areas that corporations, in the past at least, have had less direct experience
of - education health care, welfare and the environment. Notions of 'vouchers'
for education and 'private welfare' have been popularised by the radical
neo-liberals. These provide a mechanism for deregulating the public sector
and creating markets - commodifying - what were previously public goods.
Relevant to this discussion is the framework provided by the radical neo-liberals
with respect to the environment. 'A Green Thumb for the Invisible Hand'
was the name of one publication from the Tasman Institute, and it gives
a sense of what the radicals neo-liberals have attempted to do on the
issue of environmental protection. Environmental protection is best achieved,
they argue, when markets are created for environmental goods. This would
mean that businesses would then be able to make rational decisions about
the allocation of those goods and this would lead to environmental protection.

The radical neo-liberals have typically posed this as the solution to
the Greenhouse effect. On the one hand they (and the IPA and Lavoisier
Institute have been particularly important here) have cast doubts upon
the scientific validity of claims about the existence of the Greenhouse
effect and portrayed environmentalists as ideologically motivated and
committed to the destruction of western civilisation. On the other they
have put forward free-market environmentalism as the solution - such as
the use of carbon credits and emission trading. All of these have been
disseminated at high profile conferences for politicians, scientists and
business leaders.

In
terms of language, the radical neo-liberals have attempted to create a
new common sense that supports their ideology. For example, 'vouchers'
are not about the transfer of public funds to private universities or
schools, they are about extending freedom of choice for students and parents.
Dissenting intellectuals are not an essential part of a vibrant democracy,
they are politically correct elites or part of the guilt industry. Deregulation
of biotechnology doesn't raise serious ethical or environmental questions,
it is about maximising consumer choice. Attacking the unemployed is about
creating a culture for work. If you look at the language used by the Coalition,
particularly the likes of Tony Abbott, the imprint of the radical neo-liberals
is obvious.

The
justificatory framework provided by the radical neo-liberals is that free
markets work. Inequalities in Australian society are either unimportant
or blown out of proportion by politicised charities Where people are suffering
it is not because of two decades of economic rationalism or neo-liberalism,
not because of unregulated corporations, but because of government interference
in the market. If only government got out of the way and let the market
run its course, then things would be fine. If only employers had fewer
restrictions, such as Awards, things would be dandy. Robert Manne has
remarked that the radical neo-liberals are ideological because it is virtually
impossible to think of any amount of evidence convincing them that their
theories are wrong. For them, it is always a case of incorrect or insufficient
application.

A
favourable climate for neo-liberalism

Over
the last two decades the radical neo-liberals have helped to create a
favourable climate for neo-liberalism in the realm of public debate. In
the 1980s and early nineties by making radical statements such as that
Australia's industrial relations system, the system of Arbitration, should
be completely abolished and replaced with individual contracts between
employers and employees the radical neo-liberals created allowed other
neo-liberal agendas, such as that of enterprise bargaining, to seem but
a moderate reform. They thus carved out a space for neo-liberal policies.
Since the election of their views dominate the print media via fellow-travelling
polemicists and they have provided the hard edge of the right-wing assault
upon social justice. They make explicit what john Howard only hints at.
So when John Howard says 'The peace movement should support our troops'
the polemicists and think tanks say 'The anti-war movement support Saddam.'

So,
how does all of this relate to US imperialism? US unilateralism? US global
economic agendas?

The
radical neo-liberals and their think tanks provide the ideological support
for these agendas. They offer a justificatory framework for free trade
agendas. They provide an apology for privilege and prejudice. They take
up the ideological assault upon the Left. Upon defenders of social justice.
Upon the anti-war movement. Upon those who think that the international
economic system should be structured to advance global justice rather
than to further the interests of the already powerful. They offer mechanisms
whereby the neo-liberal dream of the commodification of everything can
become a reality.

Damien Cahill lectures in Politics at the University
of Wollongong and is completing a PhD on the New Right in Australia